Engineering work, like many other branches of intellectual work, does not have many of the properties of other jobs. So I don't share the ideal of a normal engineer doing normal work in their office hours. I also don't buy into the 10x pushback, there's not only 10x engineers, there's 100x engs. Easy to prove, can you think of an engineer that adds negative value? That deletes tests, or breaks stuff? That adds left-p…
>Easy to prove, can you think of an engineer that adds negative value? That deletes tests, or breaks stuff? No. Have you really worked with someone that did this and they weren't fired?
“Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
221–230 of 543 posts
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#222When did IEEE become host to clickbait nonsense? This whole take feels like an editorial by a junior engineer going off vibes. It's all off-base, from the misunderstanding of how to measure productivity, to what output matters, to the idea that there is such a thing as a "normal" software engineer. It's kind of embarrassing.
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#223This is my favorite take on 10x engineers https://testdouble.com/insights/the-looming-demise-of-the-10...
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Easy to prove, can you think of an engineer that adds negative value? That deletes tests, or breaks stuff? No. Have you really worked with someone that did this and they weren't fired?
I'll change the perspective so that we can look further. Have you ever seen a product that got worse over time instead of better? I find that it's the majority. Even if they get sales and more users. I'll list the exceptions: whatsapp, and even they succumb to bloat features like ai slop or stories or "communities". If you take a wider period, all software gets worse with time(they die, nothing is forever).
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comforting yet false assertions. Great engineers tire of working with “normal” engineers, they want to work with others who they respect. A team of only great engineers can have a completely different culture than a team of “normal engineers”. Teams of great engineers are magnets that attract others. Building a great team weirdly does not become harder over time, as your project is derisked you get access to larger a…
> Comforting yet false assertions. Great engineers tire of working with “normal” engineers, they want to work with others who they respect What a great environment to train juniors. Does not sound toxic at all.
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#226I could not disagree more with nearly everything in this article. Individuals ship software not teams, unless you are pair programming. Nearly all complex technical projects are owned by one super smart person (Ex: linux). You don't need to have a scientific measurement of productivity to know that in your median team of 12 there really are 2 people carrying the water for everyone else. A players hire A players, B pl…
In my 40 years of professional software development, rarely have I seen such an uninformed post. And ignorant. Did I mention ignorant? I've been the "10x" developer, multiple times. And there certainly are poor performers and exceptional performers, but great teams makes great software, not great individuals. The analogies are numerous. You can look at a great (american) football team and see the Quarterback as the 1…
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the field grew tremendously and you can see a clear generational bias -- by years of experience, not age -- where the cohort from the last 10-15 years has a completely different understanding of what the craft is [software engineering vs business development] and how to approach it [optimal solution vs soonest deliverable]. You can also trace personal backgrounds and you'll see a much higher representation in the…
This post is so weird on so many levels. I'll focus on this part: > You can also trace personal backgrounds and you'll see a much higher representation in the newer cohort coming from upper middle class backgrounds with families in careers like finance, consulting, medicine/dentistry whereas more in the older cohort came from more modest middle class backgrounds in engineering, academia, or even working class trades.…
To be fair, I don't see any value judgements in the post you're replying to. He doesn't say if it's a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. But what I think this means is that field became more popular, entry filters became more competitive, and families with less resources to invest in their offspring became filtered out.
There's nothing good or bad about it.
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#228I like this article particularly because I think the trope that there's something unique and different about software engineering is pretty toxic, both to we people in the field and people looking to employ people in the field. These days it feels a bit like another well known toxic field, finance, in that people conflate an outsized leverage for personal valor. It's laudable to do your work well and go home to the r…
I know whenever someone says anything negative like this people come out of the woodwork to say the opposite, and that's fine, but I can't name a single competent programmer who doesn't say things like this in private, and I know a lot of them.
Test it for yourself. The next time you need one of the mediocre people on your team to do something pay attention to how they do it. I will bet you it's something like this: Get the ticket. Spend a day or two trying anything they can think of, googling, pasting stuff into chatgpt, etc. Then they start messaging people. They tend to try to not always ask the same helper because it would get too annoying, so they rotate around the team asking for help. The helper starts by offering suggestions, but the mediocre dev can't get those suggestions working or apply them correctly. Pretty soon the helper just types a bunch of code into the chat window so they can go back to what they are trying to do. The m dev takes this code, and pastes it into their branch. It's not quite right though, it needs a little tweaking to work but they can't figure out what to do, so they message the next helper. (And sometimes it's hilarious what it is, a lot of times it's a typo and when you run the code it says exactly what line it's on, but they don't know how to run code besides pressing the button in their editor that someone else set up for them) To helper 2 it seems like they are making good progress, they are just stuck on some small thing. Happens to everyone. They tell them exactly what's wrong. And voila, this is how about 30% of the people you work with write code. People don't catch on because when you are helper #2 you assume they wrote that perfectly competent code.
Re: “Normal” engineers are the key to great teams
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These days it feels a bit like another well known toxic field, finance, in that people conflate an outsized leverage for personal valor. Didn't we pass the rubicon on that in the early 2010s? I personally don't feel that its "like" finance but that its the exact same behaviors from the exact same set of people. Once tech stopped being a bunch of nerds in a basement and started being a source of wealth and power, it…
>Once tech [...] started being a source of wealth and power this happened "in the early 2010s"? I don't think so. Software engineers have no power, and in comparison to finance, quite limited wealth.